If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have a family 6 model 28 (0x1c from the code above) Intel Atom N280 CPU and its C-states are exposed by intel_idle. So why is a family 6 model 54 (0x36) Intel Atom N2800 missing support from intel_idle? Intel Atom Processor D2000 and N2000 series datasheet [1] shows that this processor supports C-states:

From the module's aliases above we can see that it supports my family 6 model 28 (001C) Intel Atom N280 CPU, but is missing support for my family 6 model 54 (0036) Intel Atom N2800.

Considering the above presentations I have made, I am under the impression that these particular Atom CPUs, being unfortunately the odd-man out among Intel's great FOSS-supported CPU line-up, are being singled-out from support by Intel OTC.

It's already a rough road getting decent graphics performance from these Atoms, but seeing some CPU-specific, not to mention the important C-state, support missing for these models I am more inclined to think that support is cursed for this product, at least from a GNU/Linux point-of-view. Intel really dropped the ball on this one.

Can somebody from Intel start adding CPU support where it's missing for these particular Atom CPUs, please?

Like I said, these particular Atom CPUs are still categorically considered as Intel CPUs, despite being PowerVR SGX GPU the discriminator in these. Intel slapped their trademark in these CPUs, even in the GPU that wasn't theirs (calling it Intel GMA instead of Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX).

Wasn't it Intel that started the trend of "ingredient branding" in the hardware business in the 1990s that established their name as it is known now? Sure, you could fault somebody for not researching enough on Linux support before buying certain hardware, and instead blindly relying on brand name.

But Intel, who popularized "ingredient branding" in the hardware business that was new at that time, should have instead called their GPU for these Atoms PowerVR, instead of associating their brand name with it, even going as far as calling it as one of their own, and then showing support, both on Windows and Linux, that is something not to be expected from a company so well established in the industry.

Comment

This thread is really interesting to me. Does the missing support means no real power saving features? I'm currently considering Intel N2800 for my small server and the lack of power saving features would be a no-go for me... Or is somebody working on it?

Comment

Support for the graphics portion could have been added to the kernel i915 driver, because the modesetting part is quite similar to other Intel graphics. But Intel decided against it for presumably non-technical reasons. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/22/269 for discussion. Instead, one Intel employee had to develop a separate driver on his own initiative with significant amount of code duplication.

It appears that the Intel open source folks do not want to touch anything related to the PowerVR Atoms, be it the graphics or not.

Comment

Would you happen to have a link on that? I'd be very much interested in reading about it.

I would understand if Intel OTC will not support the GPU side of this particular Atom, because it is a licensed IP from Imagination Technologies (PowerVR SGX).

But if what you're saying is that this CPU as well will receive no support from Intel OTC, then that would be unfortunate to hear about.

Intel has pretty much written off the hardware as you can see from the lack of updates for continued support on any platform from a long way back and it's not in their interest to devote any resources to supporting it further with their newer hardware requiring their attention. You'll just have to dump it and move on to something newer. End of Line.